Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Alamy said:

Just a quick update for you here to confirm that we are reading all responses and it's clear to us that there is confusion around the wording of some of the specific clauses in the new contract. 

 

We're sorry for the confusion these have caused. More details to follow soon, but we are looking at the possibility of rewording some clauses to make them clearer as well as providing further info here as to how the clauses could be used.

 

Best regards

 

Alamy

I am far from all enthusiasm until I see concrete changes, promises can be made so easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Alamy will make a slight amendment to the wording and everybody will be falling over themselves with whoops of gratitude......'Thanks for listening' 'we knew all long that you cared about us really.'

You've just described Stockholm Syndrome!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Alamy said:

We're sorry for the confusion these have caused.

 

Alamy

Yeah, right. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My contract is terminating on the 30th June - I have just deleted my images but it appears they will still be available to the company to sell until 25th November this year - question is, is this legal for Alamy to do this given that the contract is no longer extant???

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taina said:

I do not care about the payment cut at this point

 

I do! If I was making more money I could afford to employ legal advisers to mitigate the others contractual issues!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

Alamy will make a slight amendment to the wording and everybody will be falling over themselves with whoops of gratitude [...] Some Psychology student ought to do a PhD on it

 

You think they'd get a research grant for that? 'Deal Negotiation For Dummies' must already cover it surely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobD said:

For me to stay now, clause 5.1 has to remove all our liabilities for Alamy and its customers legal and compensation costs.

I don't make enough here to warrant insurance even if you could get it for other peoples mistakes.

 

I'm sure Alamy is competent enough to have its own liability insurance, so why this clause is even there in the first place doesn't make sense.  

 

If I make a mistake or lie about an image then I accept that I would bear responsibility for my actions, but I am surely not going to accept the responsibility for others I have no control over.

Alamy will have their own insurances - but their objective will be to not claim against it - far better for Alamy to pass that risk onto us - no matter how unreasonable that is - or how  impractical given we are not in a position to manage the risk

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sally R said:

 

I agree with you. I'm just trying to figure out their rationale. Certain things don't seem to make sense, such as positing the chasing of infringements for those who are exclusive as an incentive, while at the same time creating a massive disincentive for being exclusive. If the number of contributors who are exclusive is already about 6.5%, and that reduces to a much smaller number again because of the new contract, then they won't have that many cases to pursue infringement wise anyway. Maybe that is the plan.

 

I also think that if they were going to make a commission change, it would have been just better to straightforwardly state what that change will be. Introducing an incentive scheme where the top tier, platinum, is inaccessible to most, doesn't leave people feeling great. The terminologies are marketing jargon designed to make us feel like something good is happening for us when the opposite is the case. It is interesting they didn't use gold, silver and bronze, probably with the psychological intent of making people feel that if they are on the bottom of the wrung and only getting 20%, then at least they can feel they are silver (not bronze). I'd so prefer if they left out the marketing and just said what they were going to do with a clear rationale.

 

 

I agree Sally and in short it looks like;

 

nobody took the time to think this through

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gardenbush said:

My contract is terminating on the 30th June - I have just deleted my images but it appears they will still be available to the company to sell until 25th November this year - question is, is this legal for Alamy to do this given that the contract is no longer extant???

 

They should be removing all images when you're terminating the contract, until then you're just in the regular image deletion process where it's still available for months afterwards.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sally R said:

Another factor in all of this I have thought of, is the way QC works at Alamy. The microstock agency I was briefly with beforehand scrutinise every image uploaded and immediately reject anything that they consider any kind of liability risk. Also, anything not marked editorial can be rejected when it might not seem obvious at first why. I remember a contributor there posting his image on their forum that had been rejected wondering why it was considered to be a problem. It did seem a puzzle as there was no apparent property or subjects of concern in the image. The forum moderator responded with a close-up of part of the image showing that when really zoomed in, there was some tiny, tiny writing on something obscure in the image that meant there was in fact a need for it to be marked editorial.

 

Given that Alamy do not see all images that go through QC, they are probably trying to have measures in place to cover themselves should any issues arise with an image. I feel Alamy's QC approach has more flexibility and in many ways makes more sense, but then there is also easily room for images to go through that Alamy are not seeing that may not comply with the restrictions designated for the image or might be considered potentially problematic. As their QC process is less tightly controlled, perhaps they are trying to cover any risks they perceive associated with this. The RM/RF distinction also makes things a bit more complex, and then that distinction is becoming less clear now in the way images are licensed anyway.

 

 

Indeed, this was brought home to me recently when I uploaded a few images to S*******. A couple I thought didn’t have any property were rejected because it was deemed they did. One was a very old (hundreds of years) carved face in a public wall in Cuba which was an old postbox with the letters Buzon. Another was a ramshackle homemade fruit and vegetable stall with no lettering or people or any identifiable aspect in a street between two houses. If this is the  level at which we need to mark property then I will need to seriously revise my images here.

Edited by Sally
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, gardenbush said:

My contract is terminating on the 30th June - I have just deleted my images but it appears they will still be available to the company to sell until 25th November this year - question is, is this legal for Alamy to do this given that the contract is no longer extant???


I suspect the 6 months delay before final deletion is to allow Alamy clients to later purchase an image that they may have already downloaded but not declared for a long term project.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sally said:

Indeed, this was brought home to me recently when I uploaded a few images to S*******. A couple I thought didn’t have any property were rejected because it was deemed they did. One was a very old (hundreds of years) carved face in a public wall in Cuba which was an old postbox with the letters Buzon. Another was a ramshackle homemade fruit and vegetable stall with no lettering or people or any identifiable aspect in a street between two houses. If this is the  level at which we need to mark property then I will need to seriously revise my images here.


Whenever in doubt I always mark as people/number no release and property no release + editorial.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Sally said:

 If this is the  level at which we need to mark property then I will need to seriously revise my images here.

If you don't annotate, the image shows as unreleased anyway. You wouldn't have marked the image as released, so that should suffice.

My default is that every image contains property- even a landscape "belongs" to the National Park or whatever. But I don't tick the boxes anymore. Am I going to go back and check? Am I coco.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alamy said:

Just a quick update for you here to confirm that we are reading all responses and it's clear to us that there is confusion around the wording of some of the specific clauses in the new contract. 

 

We're sorry for the confusion these have caused. More details to follow soon, but we are looking at the possibility of rewording some clauses to make them clearer as well as providing further info here as to how the clauses could be used.

 

Best regards

 

Alamy

Remember, you need to give us 45 days notice after you change the wording, as that will be a new contract.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sb photos said:


I suspect the 6 months delay before final deletion is to allow Alamy clients to later purchase an image that they may have already downloaded but not declared for a long term project.

 

Or allow Alamy to debit you any refunds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sb photos said:


I suspect the 6 months delay before final deletion is to allow Alamy clients to later purchase an image that they may have already downloaded but not declared for a long term project.

I’m pretty sure if you terminate your contract because of the changes your images are taken down with immediate effect. How can Alamy sell your images after the termination date as they would then be subject to the new terms? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thyrsis said:

I’m pretty sure if you terminate your contract because of the changes your images are taken down with immediate effect. How can Alamy sell your images after the termination date as they would then be subject to the new terms? 

 

I think they're talking about the situation when you manually delete images - they stay "available" for 6 months after the deletion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

If you don't annotate, the image shows as unreleased anyway. You wouldn't have marked the image as released, so that should suffice.

My default is that every image contains property- even a landscape "belongs" to the National Park or whatever. But I don't tick the boxes anymore. Am I going to go back and check? Am I coco.

Oh well, it’s easy enough to change everything to editorial only using Alamy Lightroom Bridge. Then, if I can be bothered change individual photos back.

Edited by Sally
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alamy said:

Just a quick update for you here to confirm that we are reading all responses and it's clear to us that there is confusion around the wording of some of the specific clauses in the new contract. 

 

We're sorry for the confusion these have caused. More details to follow soon, but we are looking at the possibility of rewording some clauses to make them clearer as well as providing further info here as to how the clauses could be used.

 

Best regards

 

Alamy

 

If they need clarified or reworded they were no good in the first place. Will you also have a rethink on the commission changes as they're wrong too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Russell Watkins said:

 

I think they're talking about the situation when you manually delete images - they stay "available" for 6 months after the deletion.

Nope!

The original question was ‘my contract is terminating on the 30th June - I have just deleted my images but it appears they will still be available to the company to sell until 25th November this year - question is, is this legal for Alamy to do this given that the contract is no longer extant???’

As far as I am aware the deleted images will only be available until the 30th June....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bryan said:

Late to the party as usual, but I have just read the new clause 5.1 in the contract and am horrified.  It seems like contributors are to be held responsible for the unlawful acts of others.

 

Where appropriate, I clearly mark  my photos as needing a release whether for property or persons.  Surely it is the publisher, ignoring that instruction, who should be called to account? 

 

In any event I can't afford to take the risk and, with my limited photo income, comprehensive liability insurance is unlikely to be financially viable. Unless this is resolved I will, very reluctantly, opt out.  Years of work down the pan........

 

I wonder if there's a possibility for an Alamy wide indemnity insurance for a small annual fee collected by Alamy each year. There are supposed to be 180,000 contributors after all?

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
  • Alamy unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.